Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules

You mean the version currently winning in the courts and backed up by even conservative lawyers?

 

No they don't as the descending judges including the CHIEF JUSTICE say in their ruling. States legislatures have broad authority in how their states electors will be chosen which does not require an election. They do not have authority as to who is qualified to serve as President. States do not have ANY authority to declare someone engaged in an insurrection against the United States government,

 

Is section 3 of the 14th a criminal or an administrative process?

Answer: It's an administrative process. If it is decided either by a state supreme court of a state secretary of state (depending on what the state constitution dictates for the qualification process) that someone engaged in an insurrection, the result of that decision does not deprive anyone of anything except other than being disqualified for the ballot. Note, there is no 'right' to be on a ballot before qualifying therefore there is no deprivation of a right.

therefore, it's an administrative process. If it deprived someone of liberty, then it would be criminal. If it deprived someone of their liberty, then due process is required.

That being said, they won't do it lightly, as it will impact an election, so ultimately, it will be up to the Supreme court to rule, assuming Trump appeals the Colorado decision, which, of course, he will.

 

The independent state legislature theory is did. Catch up.

And why not? I don't think you've really thought this through.

 

And wasn't an insurrection and not one of them was charged with insurrection.

 

Even if it weren't an insurrection, it's hard to argue it wasn't a rebellion. Also, how is a sedition not insurrection or rebellion?

 

ROFL at least two of them ruled IN TRUMP's favor the CSC overturned them by a 4-3 vote. And this wasn't a Grand Jury geeezzzz get your facts straight. This was a CIVIL CASE.

 

For the government to say you have committed a crime and sanction you for it you must have been convicted in a court by a jury. And in a court with proper JURISDICTION. This is not splitting hairs this is separation of powers. The state courts have no jurisdiction over insurrection against the United States.

 

By declaring him guilty of and sanctioning him for insurrection against the United States they are.

 

As you had previously pointed out (but I guess forgot), this was a civil case, not a criminal one. And it was about Colorado's ballots, which of course Colorado courts have jurisdiction over.

 

What judge ... whatever are yo talking about now.

The article Doctrine on Impeachment Judgments address your point that aquittal of impeachment goes beyond the impeachment. It doesn't.

Don't you wish.

 

HUH ?

You are ingoring the most basic criteria, and that is that he’s does NOT need to be convicted.It reads:

Thats very clearly defined, but better yet, Trump did engage in both with the fake electors plot.Thats not up for debate. We can debate the legality of what he did(it was illegal), but that in and of itself is rebellion at a minimum, which would clearly, constitutionally qualify for being barred from the ballot

 

The Judges disagree with you. I have no idea personally. Let’s see what the USSC says

This is like hundreds of cases per year that go to a higher court. Y’all just really really don’t like this one (don’t worry, I felt the same when the USSC stripped protections from women)

 

This will come as a total shock to you, but some states will attempt to keep their courts somewhat balanced, even through years of successful Democratic control... Mind blowing for you, I know...

Their conclusions are in the minority and all over the place....

If I were to guess, I'd think they all got together and drew straws to see who would be in the minority and thus not everybody would be subjected to typical MAGA harassment... decent strategy...

 

Don't you think that's a lot of bad news for Trump?

Still convinced he's going to triumph?

 

Trump's "American Patriots" never disappoint him.



'Colorado Supreme Court justices face a flood of threats after disqualifying Trump from the ballot'

'The latest round of threats fits a familiar pattern: Trump faces a legal setback, and officials face threats'.

Snips:

"This ends when we kill these f--kers," a user wrote on a pro-Trump forum that was used by several Jan. 6 rioters."


"What do you call 7 justices from the Colorado Supreme Court at the bottom of the ocean?" asked another user. "A good start."

Posts — whose images and links were included in the report — noted a variety of methods that could be used to kill those perceived as Trump's enemies: hollow-point bullets, rifles, rope, bombs.

"Kill judges. Behead judges. Roundhouse kick a judge into the concrete," read a post on a fringe website. "Slam dunk a judge's baby into the trashcan."


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...threats-disqualifying-trump-ballot-rcna130720

 

So now its your claim when I stated

You didn't respond with this. This isn't your post?

But now magically you didn't say that
Got it

So when I posted
Which is why they lose so (every time) they attack the 2nd.
You now say you didn't respond with
Not every time

Got it

I even gave you the legal description and you came back with did I search the word and because and is in the constitution.
Thats not a response from someone who would know why they chose the word shall.

This is what I provided
The word shall is a legal reference used in the constitution. Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive. This contrasts with the word “may,” which is generally used to indicate a permissive provision, ordinarily implying some degree of discretion. This isn't an opinion, its how legal scholars read the constitution.

If you watch the video on the segment I provided (between 11 and 12 minute mark) The judge states Trump is acquitted of all criminal claims, not impeachment. You can't acquit someone of impeachment.

Trump was ACQUITTED Double jeopardy has nothing to do with anything in this conversation

All that states is what the limits of punishment are. Not related to anything

And if he's acquitted, he is due the very same legal recognition. Sorry, you can't have one without the other

Not related to anything

Not related to anything

 

Maybe that's the exact result they want.

 

Education time.
The word shall is a legal reference used in the constitution. Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive. This contrasts with the word “may,” which is generally used to indicate a permissive provision, ordinarily implying some degree of discretion. This isn't an opinion, its how legal scholars read the constitution.

Which is why the 3 dissenting judges all claimed, without a conviction they have no authority to remove Trump from the ballot.
Which is why 91 other judges in 13 states wouldn't even look at it.
And is exactly what the SCOTUS will tell you.

So you can stop with all the media hodge podge about not needing a conviction.
THis is the very same reason why nobody on the left has changed the 2nd amendment after 200 years of interpreting what they claim it says.

 

As usual, your reply has nothing to do with what I said, and I've long since learned it's pointless to try to ask you to clarify.

 

There is no such thing as an acquittal of impeachment.
Why do you think you and other posters continue you claim he was impeached twice.
If you actually thought he was acquitted?
Were you lying then, or are you lying now?

 

Heh, from the people who believe in the female penis, a President led an insurrection against himself.

 

Do tell, who are these conservative lawyers you draw like a gun.
Can't wait for this one

 

So I guess we'll see how the appeal goes, but if you really don't want every single election to hamstrung by multiple court challenges of candidates based on your insurrection to the constitution theory, you better hope Trump wins the appeal.

 

So you consider Kissinger or Brzezinski foreigners, even though they were both US citizens (unlike the person I was referring to)? Maybe you find their blood is tainted.